On Friday 21 November 2003 2:59 pm, Jonathan Steinert wrote:
What you are proposing would require all mail servers to add a caching
web client to their code. Personally this no longer feels 'lightweight'
in code or in bandwidth.
Well, an HTTP callout is actually very simple particularly if you know what
you expect to receive. It's not more heavyweight than a DNS lookup, in fact
simpler. Perl seems popular around here and has builtin functions that make
this easy. A C implementation may be a couple of pages of code, but still
trivial.
In terms of caching I personally am planning to cache (domain, localpart,
sender_ip) tuples of SPF results (along with other mechanisms such as
bondersender.org lookups). DNS caching and HTTP caching are both 'secondary
caches' as far as I am concerned.
You may be right that most implementations will want to rely on cached DNS and
HTTP. How hard can it be to cache (smtp-spf.txt, domain) tuples? Another page
or two of C?
I'm more worried about load than complexity. It will certainly add to machine
and network load, but maybe the benefit outweighs the cost?
- Dan
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.6.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡